Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

T H E QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH,

67 (1981), 270-83.

APOLOGIA IN TEAM SPORT


Noreen Wales Kruse

OR over a decade, rhetorical critics


have been eontributing to our better
understanding of the apologia, those
statements of self-defense produced by
individuals whose conduet has led society to judge them as immoral or unethical.' To date, however, no one has examined the apologetic responses of sports
personalities. In this essay, I will delineate the circumstances that prompt sport
figures' apologiae, describe the substantive materials they incorporate in their
public defenses,2 and offer some generalizations to explain these conventions.
The apologies of sport figures may

Ms. Kruse ts a Test Specialist in the Research and


Development Division of the American College
Testing Program, Iowa City, JA 52243. She
wishes to thank Donovan Ochs and Bruce Gronbeck for their assistance in the preparation of this
essay.
'See L. W. Rosenfield, "A Case Study in Speech
Criticism: The Nixon-Truman Analog," Communication Monographs, 35 (1968), 435-50; David A. Ling,
"A Pentadic Analysis ot Senator Edward Kennedy's
'Address to the People of Massachusetts,' July 25,
1969," Central States Speech fournat, 21 (1970), 8186; Sherry Devereaux Butler, "The Apologia, 1971
Genre," Southern Speech Communication fournat, 37
(1972), 281-89; B. L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel,
"They Spoke in Defense of Themselves: On the Generic
Criticism of Apologia," Quarterly fournal of Speech, 59
(1973), 273-83; Jackson Harrell, B. L. Ware, and Wil
A. Linkugel, "Failure of Apology in American Politics:
Nixon on Watergate," Communication Monographs,
42 (1975), 245-61; Noreen W. Kruse, "Motivational
Faetors in Non-Denial Apologia," Centrat States
Speech fournat, 28 (1977), 13-23; Michael Volpe,
"Socrates' Rhetorical Dilemma in tbe Apology'' Western fournat of Speech Communication, 42 (1978), 12433; and Ellen Reid Gold, "Political Apologia: The
Ritual of Self-Defense," Communication Monographs,
45(1978), 306-16.
^In this essay, my use of the terms, "sport figure"
and "sport personality," rather than "athlete" is deliberate. Athletes are not the only sport figures who defend
their characters. Furthermore, I am concerned here
with the apologetic discourse generated by people
involved in team athletics rather than with statements
made by sport figures like golfers, boxers, or tennis

seem to some to deal with the trivial, but,


for many in our society, the outcome of a
football game had greater signifieance
than political solutions.^ As Snyder and
Spreitzer observe, "The phenomenon of
sport represents one of the most pervasive social institutions in the United
States," and its salience "can be documented in terms of news eoverage, financial expenditures, number of participants and spectators, hours consumed,
and time samplings of conversations."''
Sport "as an institution permeates and
articulates with other institutions."^ Sir
Alfred Lunn notes that the influence and
prestige of sport in the modern world is
comparable only to that of the church in
medieval Europe.' Far from being trivial, sportand especially team sport
has both social and psychological significance. It is a phenomenon of cultural
import.
players who perform as individuals. Sport personalities
who defend their characters as individuals do not
produce statements that consistently exhibit the features
seen in tbe apologiae of those associated with teams.
^Joseph Durso, "Sportswritingand the All-American Dollar," Saturday Review, Oct. 1971, pp. 66-73.
Cited by Harry Edwards, Sociotogy of Sport (1973; rpt.
Homewood, III.: The Dorsey Press, 1977), p. 260. It is
noteworthy tbat in December, 1979, the Americans held
hostage in Tehran, Iran, asked the representatives of the
clergy who visited them at Christmas about the NFL
standings. On January 15, 1980, the public was told
that Alex Paen, a newsperson at KMPC Radio, Los
Angeles, had arranged for the hostages to see a videotape of the upcoming Super Bowl.
Eldon E. Snyder and Elmer Spreitzer, "Sociology
of Sport: An Overview," in Sport and the Social Order:
Contributions to the Sociotogy of Sport, ed. Donald W.
Ball and John W. Loy (Reading Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1975), p. 10.
5Ibid., p. 11.
''"Politics and Sports," in Sport in the Sociocuttural
Process, ed. M. Marie Hart (Dubuque, la.: Wm. C.
Brown, 1972), p. 484. Cited by John C. Pooley and
Artbur V. Webster, "Sport and Politics: Power Play,"

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH


SPORT AS A SEPARATE SPHERE OF
SOCIAL REALITY

Before examining the conventions that


constitute the team sport apologia, it is
neeessary to consider the world of sport
as a sphere of soeial reality separate
from the soeiopolitieal world.^ This
separation is not absolute. Certainly,
sport is a huge finaneial enterprise.
Furthermore, not only are professional
and amateur athletic institutions politicized internally, but sport is also used as
a political instrument. However, as I am
presenting it here, the essence of sport is
its affective dimension, its emotional
import for spectators.
Scholars have posited that the reality
of the sociopolitical world exists in
shared consensus of sentiment and
belief, which is conceptualized in terms
of "the rhetorical vision," "rhetorical
fiction," "political myth," and "collective consciousness."8 Despite the differing labels and the multiplicity of
topics to be found in these studies, sehol-

271
KRUSE

ars now imply or explicitly assert that


sociopolitical reality is at its core mythie,
if we can understand "myth" to be the
unquestioned, collectively held sentiments and beliefs that give order to the
community and shape the group's moral
imperatives and prohibitions.'
Some assert that, unlike sociopolitical
reality, the essence of the sport world is
merely speetacle and entertainment. For
example, sport writer Jim Murray has
called sport reporting the "toy department" of journalism, and ex-basketball
star Bill Bradley has expressed his belief
that sport provides escape for the spectators.'" Others, however, perceive that
sport offers something more than entertainment and escape. Novak observes
that if people "wanted no more than to

dency," Quarterly journal oj Speech, 66 (1980), 11926; Jef D. Bass and Richard Cherwitz, "Imperial
Mission and Manifest Destiny: A Case Study of Political Mytb in Rhetorical Discourse," Southern Speech
Communication journal, 43 (1978). 213-32; and
Michael C. McGee, "In Search of 'The People': A
Rhetorical Alternative," Quarterly Journal oj Speech,
61 (1975), 235-49. Others among the many studies in
which scholars examine the relationship between rhetorical discourse and socially constructed reality are
in Sport Sociology: Contemporary Themes, ed. Andrew Walter R. Fisher, "Reaffirmation and Subversion of the
American
Dream," Quarterly journal oj Speech, 59
Yiannakis et al. (Dubuque, !a.: Kendall-Hunt, 1976),
p. 35. Originally a paper presented at a symposium, (1973), 160-67; Michael McGuire, "Mythic Rhetoric
"Sport, Man, and Contemporary Society," Queens in Mein Kampj. A Structuralist Critique," Quarterly
journal oj Speech, 63 (1977), 1-13; Martin J.
College, 10 and It Mar. 1972.
^Huizinga has identified the world one creates while Medhurst, "American Cosmology and the Rhetoric of
Inaugural Prayer," Central Slates Speech journal, 28
playing as a reality that exists outside of wbat be has
(1977), 272-82; Bruce E. Gronbeck, "The Rhetoric of
designated "normal" time and space. Many of his Political Corruption: Sociolinguistic, Dialectical, and
arguments supporting the concept of play as a reality Ceremonial Processes," Quarterly journal oj Speech, 64
differing from the reality of the world with which we (1978), 155-72; Thomas B. Farrell, "Political Conveninteract most of tbe time can also be applied to the tions as Legitimation Ritual," Communication Monoathletic contest and the world of sport itself. Johan graphs, 45 (1978), 293-305; and Martha Solomon,
Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study oj the Play Element
"The 'Positive Woman's' Journey: A Mythic Analysis
m Culture (1938; rpt. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), pp. of the Rhetoric of Stop ERA," Quarterly journal oj
1-27. See also Kenneth L. Schmitz, "Sport and Play: Speech, 65 (1979), 262-74; W. Lance Benett, "Myth,
Suspension of the Ordinary," in Sport in the Sociocultu- Ritual, and Political Contro\," journal oj Communicaral Process, ed. Marie Hart, 2nd ed. (1972; rpt. Du- tion,30 {\')aO}, l-tT).
buque, la.: Wm. C. Brown, 1976), pp. 35-48. Originally in Sport and the Body: A Philosophical Sympo'Set Gilbert Morris Cutbbertson, Political Myth
sium, ed. Ellen Gerber (Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, and Epic (East Lansing, Micb.: Micbigan State Univ.
Press, 1975), p. 2. See also the distinction between
1972); and Alan G. Ingham and John W. Loy, Jr.,
"The Social System of Sport: A Humanistic Perspec- sacred myth, ideology, and political myth offered by
tive," in Sport in the Sociocultural Process, 2nd ed., pp. Bass and Cherwitz, pp. 213-19, and Fisher, "Rhetorical Fiction and the Presidency," pp. 119-22.
244-69. Originally in Quest, 19 (1973), 3-23.
'"Cited by Michael Novak, The Joy oj Sports: End
Ernest G. Bormann, "Fantasy and the Rhetorical
Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality," Zons^ Hases, Hasftets, Sals, and Ln Conscration of the
American
Spirit (New York: Basic Books, 1976), pp.
Quarterly journal oj Speech, 58 (1972), 396-407;
]7],170.
Walter R. Fisher, "Rhetorical Fiction and the Presi-

272
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

pass the time, to find diversion, there are


cheaper and less internally exhausting
ways." He points out that sport characterized as "entertainment" cannot explain the intensity of people's emotions
when the teams they support win or
lose." Lasch notes that "sport represents
something more than entertainment,
something that, though neither life nor
death in itself, retains some lingering
capacity to dramatize and clarify those
experiences."'^ According to Roberts,
not only does sport fulfill a collective
fantasy, but in a nation where many
refuse to take religion seriously, massaudience sport also offers something in
which people can believe.'^
The essence of sport, Novak contends,
lies in its status as "a form of religion."'"^
He writes: "The underlying metaphysic
' ' Novak, pp. 21, 24-25. This emotional intensity can
be illustrated not only by the scope of the celebrations in
American cities whenever the local professional team
has won a World Series, a Stanley Cup, an NBA title,
or the Super Bowl. Collective behaviors resulting from
defeat also testify to the psychological power sport has
over people throughout the world. Roberts reports that
after their soccer team was eliminated from the 1974
World Cup matches, Italians wore black armbands and
draped their flags in black. The Brazilian team was also
eliminated thai year. In the South American country,
not only were black-draped coffins carried through the
streets, but a mob tried to destroy the coach's home.
Michael Roberts, Fans! How We Go Crazy over Sports
(Washington, D. C : The New Republic Book Co.,
1976), p. 119.
'^Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism:
American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations
(New York: Norton, 1978), p. 119.
"Roberts, pp. 56-57.
'"Novak, p. 31. For Novak's complete description of
the ways in which sport meets the criteria of a functional religion, see pp. 29-33. Others who perceive
sport as a kind of secular religion are Howard Slusher,
"Sport and the Religious," in Sport m the Sociocultural
Process, 2nd ed., pp. 380-94. From his Man, Sport and
Existence: A Critical Analysis (Philadelphia: Lea and
Febiger, 1967), pp. 121-38; Paul Weiss, "A Metaphysical Excursus," in Sport in he Sociocultural Process,
2nd ed. pp. 395-400. From his Sport: A Philosophical
Inquiry (Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois Univ. Press,
1969); and Eleanor Metheny, "Symbolic Forms of
Movement: The Olympic Games," in Sport in the
Sociocultural Process, 2nd ed., pp. 75-83. From her
Connotations of Movement in Sport and Dance (Dubuque, la.: Wm. C. Brown, 1965), pp. 35-42.

AUGUST 1981

of sports entails overcoming the fear ol


death." An athletic contest, a series of
games "is in some as yet unexplored way
a ritual conducted under the sight and
power of the gods." Thus, "to win . . . is
to feel as though the gods are on one's
side. . . . The victories of sport are ritual
triumphs of grace, agility, perfection,
[and] beauty over death." Those who are
more skillful do not always win, so a
game tests not only talent, but also
"one's entire Iife."i5
While the players are the principal
participants in the ritual, the entire
organization that supports a team is, for
the fans, an extended "family" in which
they, too, participate. What affects one
member of' the team affects all."^ One
extends "one's own identification to one
side" in order to "absorb with it the
blows of fortune, to join with that team
in testing the favors of the Fates."
Through identification, "one places oneself under the fate of a particular group
. . . and thereby risks one's security."'^
'^Novak, pp. 56-57. The idea that sporting events are
somehow related to life and death tends to be supported,
in part, by the language of sport broadcasters. It is
almost a commonplace that fans "come to life" when a
team rallies. If a team still has a chance to win a game
or a title, that team is "still alive." When there is no
chance for success, "it's all over," and in baseball either
players or teams can be "gone." "It's all over" and
"gone" are euphemisms frequently used to signify
death.
"-Edwards, pp. 156-57, 238-47. See also Michael
Real, "The Super Bowl: Mythic Spectacle," in his
Mass-Mediated Culture (EnglewoocI ClifTs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 96. One of the most obvious
examples is the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates, winner of the
World Series and a team that publicly identified itself as
a family. The extended family included Pirate fans.
There is some indication that all fans in Pittsburgh are
part of that city's sport family. Late in 1979, the
Pittsburgh Penguins hockey team announced it would
abandon its black and white colors and would adopt the
black and gold worn by the Pirates and the 1979
champion Pittsburgh Steelers football organization. See
Dave Anderson, "Writer Unfair for Ridiculing
'Family,' Says Pops," Des Moines Register, 19 Oct.
1979, Sec. S, p. IS, cols. 1-6; p. 2S, cols. 1-3.
'^Novak, p. 144, Similarly, Huizinga has written: "If
the outcome of a contest as such, as a performance, is
deemed to infiuence the course of nature, it follows that

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

Because the destinies of players and


fans are linked, individual athletes function as the observers' surrogates.'*
According to Novak: "If the Fates favor
him [the athlete], they also favor theni
[the fans]. [The athlete's] deeds become
messages from beyond, revelations of the
favor of the gods." Therefore, "when the
athlete's failure to attain perfection leads
them all to defeat, of course they hate
him. . . . He has been the instrument of
their rejection. So they reject him."'^
As Novak identifies it, then, sport is a
kind of secular religion, a personal and
social investment with deep emotional
consequences. However, sport defined as
a secular religion is not what we have
come to recognize as the American "civil
religion,"20 even though one can identify
sport's rites, ceremonies, shrines, temples, and priests. To be sure, there is a
Fellowship of Christian Athletes, some
teams pray together before games, and
baseball manager Tom Lasorda has
referred to "The Great Dodger in the
Sky," but the secular religion of sport is
not grounded in specific Judeo-Christian tenets. Consequently, the apologetic
rhetoric of sport does not always incorporate the language of traditional religions as do the discourses that juxtapose
God and patriotism to reinforce what
Hart calls "civic piety."2' Instead of
the particular kind of contest through which this result
is obtained is a matter of small moment. It is the
winning itself that counts. Every victory represents, thai
is, realizes for the victor the triumph of the good powers
over the bad, and at the same time the salvation of the
group that effects it." Huizinga, p. 56.
'Roberts, p. 17. See also Real, pp. 98-99.
"Novak, pp. 133-34.
2"See Robert N. Bellah, "Civil Religion in America,"
Daedalus, 96 (1967), 1-21. Bellah's essay, as well as
several others relating to this topic, is reprinted in
Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones, eds., American
Cwit Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).
See also John F. Wilson, Public Religion in American
Culture (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1979).
2'See Roderick P. Hart, The Political Pulpit (West
Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue Univ. Press, 1977), pp. 43107.

273
KRUSE

invariably invoking God or using adjectives like "divine" and "sacred," sport
apologists align themselves with the god
terms of the team sport ethic.22
T H E GENERAL ETHIC OF TEAM
SPORT

Within the world of team sport, the


governing dictum that constrains all
other rules for behavior is Vince Lombardi's, "Winning isn't everything; it's
the only thing."
Ideally, "winning" means "being the
best one can possibly be," "outwitting
everything that climate, occasion, injuries, opposing strategies, and chance can
throw in one's way."23 The consummate
winning team could be one that plays
with courage and grace, even though
other teams consistently defeat it. In
some cases, a winning team is one that
betters its previous record, has a .500
season, or pulls itself out of the league
cellar. More often than not, though, fans
and organizational personnel alike see
winning only in terms of outscoring the
opposition, for this is the way in which
fate shows its favor. The emphasis upon
this view of winning tends to determine
the sport ethic's most significant tenets.
The ethic of team sport holds that the
team is greater than any of its individual
members. Players, coaches, managers
all those directly associated with the
gamemust function optimally as part
of the unit, "accommodate their selves to
predetermined roles," and learn to
suppress individual ego demands.2^
Loyalty, unity, affiliation, and the ability to place the good of the group above
one's own interests are basic constituents
John W. Loy, Barry D. McPherson, and
Gerald Kenyon, Sport and Social Systems: A Guide to
the Analysis, Problems, and Literature (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978), p. 201.
"Novak, pp. 231,230.
^Ingham and Loy, pp. 245, 254.

274
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

of the sport world's ethic.^5 Those who


perceive themselves to be individuals
rather than members of a team risk
condemnation, even rejection.
The team sport ethic requires the
public display of absolute devotion and
commitment toward the team, the game,
and the world of sport. One never criticizes the game or the sport world while
one is an active participant, and even
after retirement, the criticism should be
constructive, reinforcing the ethic. One
should never criticize the team with
which one is associated. The ethic
permits criticism of one's former team,
but only when it reinforces one's allegiance to a new group and team sport in
general.
The ethic also prescribes that neither
teams nor individuals concede defeat
until a game or series is completed.
Everyone involved must make every
effort to win at all times. No matter how
adverse the circumstances, all must give
one hundred percent of their energies.
Even injured players will continue to
perform in great pain rather than violate
the norm that one always functions to
the best of one's abilities. Furthermore,
those associated with the world of team
sport must not be involved in any activity
or enterprise that might impair their
abilities or interfere with game performances.
Although sportsmanship and fair play
are ostensible tenets of the team sport
ethic, what constitutes sportsmanship
and fair play is often defined relatively.
These precepts are frequently subverted
by the greater importance of outscoring
or outmaneuvering the competition. Leo
Durocher's observation that "nice guys

AUGUST 1981

finish last" is more than a truism; for


many it suggests a rule of conduct.
While one is expected to abide by league
and game rules, in many instances teams
and individuals weigh the risks of penalties and fines against the potential
advantages to be gained from breaking
those rules.2^ In actuality, how one plays
the game is only nominally significant,
and means are considered less important
than the end of winning.
Because the tenets of the team sport
ethic relate to winning, acts that violate
the ethic are those modes of eonduct that
could negatively affect the outcome of a
game or a series of contests, behaviors
that pose symbolic threats to sport's
ontology of competition. Thus, sport
personalities must defend their moral
worth as sport figures whenever their
conduct might have harmful effects upon
teams, games, or the world of sport and
their actions seem to result from
personal characteristics that make them
unworthy to represent the fans in "testing the favors of the Fates."
CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING
APOLOGIAE

Researchers who have tried to establish a positive relationship between team


cohesion and team success have failed to
do so.27 It is generally accepted,
however, that lack of team unity lowers
morale and negatively influences the
play.28 Although the 1978 New York
Yankees won the World Series despite
the frequent arguments among team
players, manager Billy Martin, and

^^See Edward Z. Friedenberg, Forward, Man, Sport


and Existence, in Sport in the Sociocuttural Process, 2nd
ed., p. 158. Originally in Howard Slusher, Man, Sport
^^Edwards, pp. 109^11; Loy, McPherson, and and Existence.
Kenyon, pp. 201-08; Novak, pp. 66, 69, 85-86, 90-91;
-'Synder and Spreitzer, pp. 21-22.
and Gnther Luschen, "The Interdependence of Sport
2'Rudolf K. Haerle, Jr., "Career Patterns and
and Culture," in Sporl m the Sociocutturat Process, 2nd Career Contingencies of Professional Baseball Players:
ed., p. 106. Originally in Internatwnat Review of Sport An Occupational Analysis," n Sport and the Social
& / o ^ , 2(1967), 27-141.
Order, p. 483.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

owner George Steinbrenner, their situation was considered an exception to the


rule.29
Those who threaten team harmony
violate the sport ethie by placing
egocentric needs above the good of the
group and by demonstrating laek of
commitment to the organization. One
who transgressed in this manner was
Don Sutton, who, in 1978, was a starting pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers,
eharacterized that year as "the original
happiness boys of baseball."^"
On August 20, however, Sutton was
involved in a clubhouse brawl with first
baseman Steve Garvey. Earlier, in a
Washington Post interview, Sutton had
contended that Garvey's "All-American" image was a Madison Avenue
fabrication. Garvey later claimed that
while the two men were discussing the
interview, Sutton made an unkind
comment about Garvey's wife. He added
that although " 'it's a cardinal sin to
criticize your teammates in the press,"
"nothing would have happened if [Sutton] hadn't mentioned my family.' "^'
After the incident, many expressed a
belief that Sutton was the villain in the
matter.^^ On August 24, Sutton tearfully
delivered an apologia that was telecast
live on the West Coast.^' Excerpts of the
^''See, for example, Phil Pepe, "Reggie's Fault, Says
Billy in Reviewing Yankee Hassle," The Sporting
News, 26 Aug. 1978, p. 36, cols. 1-3.
'Ron Fimrite, "Blood on the Dodger Blue," Sports
/ujlra/erf, 4 Sept. 1978, p. 24.
^'Gordon Verrell, "Smudge of Black Discolors
Famed Dodger Blue," The Sporting News, 9 Sept.
1978, p. 34, cols. 2-4. See also Fimrite, pp. 24-25.
'^Scott Ostler, "Detente on the Dodgers: Sutton
Apologizes," Los Angetes Times, 25 Aug. 1978, See. 3,
p. 1, col. 5; p. 11, col. 2.
"Ostler, p. 1, cols. 1-5; p. 11, cols. 1-6. In tbe
following examples, I deal with a limited number of
contemporary team sport apologiae made over a relatively short period of time. 1 have omitted some apologetic statements familiar to most who follow sports,
notably the self-defenses made by Muhammad Ali.
However, as I have indicated, I am dealing only with
the remarks of those who participate in team sports.

275
KRUSE

statement were earried to the rest of the


country in newspaper stories and on
local radio and television sports programs.
The idea that ill-feeling between team
members might have a bearing upon the
Dodgers' chances to win a National
League divisional title is reflected in
manager Tom Lasorda's reassurance
made immediately after the brawl that
the fight was " 'spontaneous' " and
would " 'have no bearing on the race or
on our ballclub.' "''* After Sutton delivered his apologia, Steve Garvey guaranteed that " 'the team won't be
affected.' "^^ Because fans felt threatened by a lack of team unity, an apology
was required to restore faith in the team.
Because it appeared that Sutton was at
fault, he had to apologize.
Whenever an outstanding player
leaves a team, fans also perceive a threat.
Not only is such a move oftentimes indicative of disunity, but the desertion of a
star athlete can also affect a team's
performance in a practical sense. In one
of the most publicized incidents in sport
during the last decade, Pete Rose became
Furthermore, I have eoncentrated upon statements for
which I possess the entire text. Because, generally, I
wished to rely upon individuals' complete apologiae, I
excluded past incidents like the 1919 Black Sox and the
Green Bay Packers' betting scandal. My focus necessitated that I bypass interesting situationsviolence
between fans and players, college recruiting violations,
and litigations (Dale Hackbart's legal action against
Charles Clark and the Cincinnati Bengals or Rudy
Tomjanovich's suit against Kermit Washington)tbat
may produce apologetic discourse, but which are beyond
the scope of this study.
The texts of the discourse I examine here may not be
generally available. The statements I analyze were
provided by the public relations offices of sports organizations or by media representatives. Rather than reproduce them in full, 1 will supply the full texts to those
who might wish to read them, but who have difficulty
locating them.
The text of Sutton's statement was provided by Fred
Claire, Vice President, Public Relations and Promotions, Los Angeles Dodgers.
"Verrell, p. 31, col. 2.
"Ostler, p. l,col. 3.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

a free agent, left the Cincinnati Reds


the team with which he had played for
sixteen yearsand signed a 3.2 million
dollar, four-year contract with the Philadelphia Phillies. Rose's move generated
eriticism, especially among Reds fans,
for like Sutton he seemed to put his own
eoneerns above the good of the group.
Rose acknowledged that "people are
going to think I'm a traitor," but he
shifted responsibility for the move to the
organization: "It was something I was
forced into doing by the Cincinnati ball
club."^' He contended that "if the
people who wanted me to stay with the
Redsthe fans, the other playershad
anything to say about it, I'd still be in
Cincinnati. But it just so happens that
the man who runs the Reds' show is the
one guy who didn't want me there."^'
He avoided the claim that he was
disloyal with a countercharge: "Loyalty's fine, but loyalty's a two way street. I
don't think the Reds showed [former
Cincinnati manager] Sparky Anderson
any loyalty when they fired him." Rose
also demonstrated that free enterprise is
a more significant American value than
loyalty; it would have been foolish to
eontinue playing for the Reds at half the
salary any other elub was willing to pay
him.38
In addition to actions that imply individuals have failed to consider the good
of the team, behaviors that indieate an
overly casual or frivolous attitude
toward the team or the game can result
in criticism. For example, during the
1978 football season, Tony Dorsett
angered Dallas Cowboy fans when he
^'^"Pete Rose," 60Minutes, narr. Morley Safer, prod.
Joseph Wershba, CBS, 25 Feb. 1979.
^'Lawrence Linderman, interviewer, "Pete Rose:
Penthouse Interview," Penthouse, May 1979, p. 194.
^^Linderman, p. 190. While free enterprise is an
important American value in the marketplace, it occupies an insignificant position for American fans in the
hierarchy of sport values. This is especially true when
free enterprise is interpreted as "selfishness" by the fans
and is perceived as a threat to a team's effectiveness.

AUGUST 1981

missed a Saturday practice session.


Dorsett explained to coach Tom Landry
that he overslept after pressing the
wrong button on his alarm; he had not
phoned because he lost the number of
the practice field. Landry removed
Dorsett as the team's starting halfback.^'
The following Tuesday, Dorsett addressed the team privately and stressed
his desire to be a " 'team player.' "
Afterward, he told reporters, " 'We're
winning now, and I didn't want to be the
person responsible for us \sic\ falling
apart.' '""' Dorsett's remarks earned him
the team's approbation and his own
reinstatement.*'
Although Dorsett's statement to the
press indieated he gave credence to the
relationship between attitude and winning, he did not explain his position
directly to the fans. He had defended his
character only to the team and had not
proven to Cowboy followers that he had
the proper attitude toward the game. He
made a brief, public apologia on Thursday during a nationally televised, prgame interview with Howard Cosell,"*^
but during the game, which Dallas lost,
the fans in the stadium booed him whenever he carried the ball.*^ An apologia
delivered to the television audience
immediately before the game would not
alter Dorsett's image for those in the
stands. Apparently, to them, he was still
an athlete whose failure to take game
preparations seriously could lead the
team to defeat.
"Randy Harvey, "Dorsett Talks His Way back into
Dallas Lineup," Chicago Sun-Times, 26 Oct. 1978, Sec.
3, p. 2C, cols. 2-4.
*""New Halfback Starter Dorsett Apologizes to
Cowboy Teammates," Dallas Times-Herald, 25 Oct.
1978, p. 123, cols. 5-6.
^'"New Halfback Starter Dorsett Apologizes to
Cowboy Teammates," p. 123, col. 6.
^^Monday Night Football on Thursday, Dallas
Cowboys vs. Minnesota Vikings, ABC Sports Special,
26 Oct. 1978. Text of the prgame interview supplied
by Herb Goren, American Broadcasting Company.
''^"Dorsett Puzzled by Boos," Iovm City PressCitizen, 27 Oct. 1978, Sec. 2, p. 4B, col. 6.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

Perhaps the most severe criticism is


reserved for those who indicate they are
not playing to the best of their abilities,
for these individuals appear not to care
that the team might lose. In March,
1979, Garry Templeton incurred the
wrath of St. Louis Cardinal baseball
fans, as well as the media, by stating
during a local radio interview that he
was unhappy in St. Louis. He announced, "I don't want to play here and
I'm not trying to play hard. I'm not even
trying to get out there and do my best."**
Templeton violated the accepted precept: One always tries to win and always
gives complete effort in the attempt.
The day following his outburst,
Templeton issued an apologetic press
release in which he claimed that he had
spoken in anger, stated that he had
discussed his grievances with Cardinal
management, and asserted that he was
"anxious and ready to get back to playing baseball to the best of [his] ability.'"'^
In the statement, he included a comparatively lengthy justification of his playing
style. While this material is comparable
to a policy defense, questions relating to
Templeton's skills had a moral dimension. During tbe 1978 season, he had
committed forty errors; his batting average for the 1979 spring exhibition games
was a meager .175.*^ These statistics
supported his contention that he was
making no attempt to do his best, and
they indicated to some that he might
even be playing badly on purpose.
Therefore, Templeton had to convince
"Mike Shannon, interviewer, KMOX, St. Louis,
Mo., 27 Mar. 1979. Transcription of the interview
provided by Dennis Cutter, Sports Department, St.
Louis Post-Dispatch. See also Ed Wilkes, "Templeton
Issue: SS or Style of Play?" .Si. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Sec. t-.8E, p. 1, cols. 3-6; p. 6, cols. 1-2; and Dick
Young, "Yanks Aren't the Only Ones with Brats: Cards
Have One," hwa City Press-Citizen. 31 Mar. 1979,
Sec. 2, p. 2B, cols. 4-6.
"^Templeton's statement was supplied by the Publie
Relations Division, St. Louis Cardinals.
Wilkes, p. l,col. L

277
KRUSE

Cardinal fans that he was not playing


against his own team, as well as assure
them that he was expending all of his
energy.
Whenever individuals violate the ethical norms that hold simultaneously in
both the sport world and the world at
large, they will be evaluated negatively
by fans and the general public alike.
These individuals will oftentimes attempt to repair their images with apologiae directed to the fans.
On September 28, 1978, Calvin Griffith, President of the Minnesota Twins,
spoke at a meeting of the Waseca, Minnesota, Lions Club. Within a forty
minute period, he denigrated blacks in
general and most of the Twins in particular. The remarks that primarily upset
people were his admission that he had
moved his club from Washington, D. C ,
when he discovered that there were only
fifteen thousand blacks in Minneapolis,
and his reference to Rod Carew, the
American League's Most Valuable
Player in 1977, as a " 'damned fool,' "
because Carew had signed with the
Twins for only $170,000 per year."'
Griffith's slurs threatened the success
of the Twins. Bill Dwyre, Sports Editor
of the Milwaukee Journal, said as much
when he wrote: "Don't bet a lot of
money on the Twins in the pennant race
for the next few years. After his blast,
Griffith may have enough trouble just
getting 25 guys to report, much less
getting a quality group together."** In
addition, Griffith's remarks were those
of a racist and a bigot, characteristics
*'Niek Coleman, "Griffith Spares Few Targets in
Waseea Remarks," Minneapolis Tribune, t Oct. 1978,
Sec. A, p. l,eol. t; p. 11, col. 1.
'""Hoof in Mouth Disease: Twins Griffith Says It
AllAll Wrong," Milwaukee Journal, 8 Oct. 1978, See
3, p. 1, col. 1. Rod Carew asked to be traded shortly
after Griffith made his remarks in Waseca. In 1979,
Carew played for the California Angels. The Angels
won the divisional title in the American League West
the year Carew joined thetn. The Twins finished fourth
out of seven in the Ameriean League West.

278
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

condemned by society in general. The


same public that castigated Secretary of
Agriculture Earl Butz for telling a derogatory joke also criticized Griffith for
statments demeaning blacks.'" Although
at first Griffith said he would not
respond to public disapproval, on October 3 he defended his character in a
signed press release.^^
Conduct considered wrong in both the
sport world and the socio-political world
can threaten the constructed reality of
the sport world by illuminating people's
opposing beliefs and by exposing the
contradictory tenets of the team sport
ethic. First, people still believe that
athletic participation develops good
character, even though the evidence
supporting this judgment is inconclusive.^' However, people also believe that
those who oppose society's ethical norms
reveal lack of good character. Second,
any time a sport figure demonstrates bad
^See James F. Klumpp and Thomas A. Holiihan,
"Debunking the Resignation of Earl Butz: Sacrificing
an Official Racist," Quarterly journal oj Speech, 65
(1979), 1-11. One indication that Griffith's remarks
were significant for those not necessarily involved with
either the Twins or baseball is the fact that while the
controversy lasted, all relevant materials were published
on the front page of the Minneapolis Tribune's first
section. Even when an incident involving a sport figure
who has violated the ethical norms of the sport world is
reported iti the team's home town, the coverage almost
always appears in the newspapers' sport sections.
Furthermore, on October 3, an editorial calling for
Griffith's resignation appeared in the Tribune's editorial section. When only the ethic of the sport world has
been violated, articles expressing the personal opinions
of the writers usually appear somewhere in the sport
section.
^"The text of Griffith's statement was provided by
Tom Mee, Public Relations Office, Minnesota Twins.
S'Edwards, pp. 318-19. During the spring and
summer of 1980, a number of baseball personalities
produced cbaracter defenses because they had violated
the ethical norms of both the sport world and the
sociopolitical world. Perhaps two of the most publicized
statements were those made by Los Angeles Dodger
pitcher Bob Welch and Kansas City Royals catcher
Darrell Porter following their treatments for alcoholism
and, in Porter's case, drug abuse. While most members
of our contemporary society are unlikely to consider
substance abuse a major moral infraction, many people
still view dependence upon drugs and alcohol as
evidence of weak character. Perhaps because alcoholism

AUGUST 1981

character by breaking society's rules,


that person risks bringing into focus the
ways in which the premium upon
winning can contribute to a variety of
immoral or unethical behaviors. In
either case, the resulting cognitive dissonance could disrupt the fabric of sport's
shared reality for the fans. Thus, even
when sport personalities' questionable
actions appear to be related only indirectly to team success, those individuals
may attempt to convince others that their
conduct should not be used as evidence of
bad character. In this way, they attempt
to preserve the stability of the sport
world.
CIRCUMSTANCES N O T REQUIRING
APOLOGIAE

Because the concept of winning dominates the team sport ethic, at times, acts
that would indicate bad character in the
world at large are judged neither evil nor
wicked by the fans. In late October of
1978, for example, Bart Starr, then
coach and general manager of the Green
Bay Packers, allowed running back
Duane Thomas to try out for the team.
According to National Football League
rules, a player is entitled to a twentyfour hour try-out at club expense, but
Thomas was in Green Bay for a week.
When he was asked about the situation
at a press conference, Starr stated, " 'I
can't make him (Thomas] leave town.
We can't tell him he can't be here if he
just wants to continue working out on
his own.' "^^ After he admitted to the
and drug abuse seem to contradict tbe belief that sports
huild character, both Welch and Porter were characterized by the press as "courageous" for facing their
problems. See John Hall, "Alcoholism Goes Down
Swinging," Los Angeles Times, 5 Mar. 1980, Sec. 3, p.
1, cols. 1-6; p. 6, col. 1; and "Loneliness Drove Porter
to Alcohol," Des Moines Register, 19 June 1980, Sec. S,
p. IS, col. 5; p. 2S, col. 5.
^^Dave Begel, "Thomas Incident Leaves Starr
Fuming," Mitwautiee journat, 31 Oct. 1978, Sec. 2, p.
8, cols. 1-4.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

reporters that Thomas had used Packer


clothing and facilities, Starr denied
knowing of a rule that would prohibit
such an arrangement.^' The next day,
when he learned that four of the reporters had informed NFL Commissioner
Pete Rozelle of a possible rule infraction,
Starr exploded: " 'This is a damned
cutthroat business,' Starr said. 'There
are other bloodthirsty bastards out there
trying to get an edge. Working out guys
in pads and with their teams. They are
cheating. We don't cheat. But we're
going to go the limit within the rules.
And we're going to bend them within the
framework. You can print what you
want, but if you print this, your asses are
not going to come through this door
again.' "^'* These remarks appeared in
print, and Starr carried out his threat.
Two days later, reporters who came to a
practice session were told that practices
were closed to them for the rest of the
season, that they were no longer allowed
in the locker rooms after games, and that
Starr was canceling his Wednesday
press conferences.55
Starr offered an explanation to the
press for Thomas' presence, but he had
no need to deliver a public apologia for
the way he treated the reporters. Even
his acknowledgment that the Packers
would bend the rules and his attempt to
keep that admission out of print caused
no outcry from the Green Bay fans.
Although the media criticized Starr,
Packer fans did not consider his behavior
to have violated ethical norms. In fact.
Sports Illustrated reported: "The newspapers that printed the Duane Thomas
story have been showered with letters
and phone calls, some abusive, describing the reporters [who printed
^^Begel, "Thonnas Incident Leaves Starr Fuming," p.
10, col. 4.
^'Begel, "Thomas Incident Leaves Starr Fuming," p.
8,col. 1.
55Dave Begel, "Starr Closes Door on Reporters,"
Milwaukee fournal, 2 Nov. 1978, Sec. 3, p. I, col. 1.

279
KRUSE

Starr's remarks] as villains and traitors."5"' Within the world of team sport,
deeds that may appear to be morally
reprehensible are sometimes tolerated
and may even be encouraged when they
are undertaken for the good of the team.
The rationale for the fans' sanctioning
Starr's conduct can be better understood
if one takes into consideration Huizinga's distinction between the cheat and
the spoil-sport. Huizinga claims that
society is much more lenient toward the
cheat because the cheat "pretends to be
playing the game, and, on the face of it,
still acknowledges the magic circle," but
the spoil-sport "shatters the play-world
itself. By withdrawing from the game,
he reveals the relativity and fragility of
the play-world in which he had temporarily shut himself with others."5'
In the world of team sport, spoilsports are those who endanger the reality of the game. They threaten the sport
community and its fans by denying the
constructed reality or the significance of
the sport world. Cheats, however, cheat
to win. Despite the lip service most fans
pay to the precepts of sportsmanship and
fair play, if individuals "bend the rules"
to secure advantages or to counter disadvantages, and if their conduct is not too
blatant, they are unlikely to be criticized
by those who follow their teams.^^
Consequently, sport personalities who
cheat are unlikely to be called upon by
the fans to make public apologiae, even
though the media and other teams'
followers might label their conduct "immoral."

^^"The Ungentle Art of Persuasion," Sports Iltustrated, 13 Nov. 1978, p. 13.


^'Huizinga, p. 11.
^^Certain infractions of the rules are generally criticized by all. Usually, those involved in recruiting scandals or those who falsify college athletes' grades will be
condemned by the fans, as well as hy the general public.
In situations of this scope, sport figures do not escape
the criticism of their teams' followers, even if they have
acted for the temporary good of the group.

280
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH
CONVENTIONS OF THE DISCOURSE

The apologetic responses of sport


figures do not differ strategically from
the character defenses offered by those in
the sociopolitical world. Sutton argued
that his actions were involuntary, that he
had no control over what happened. God
orchestrated the situation to tell him "to
re-examine [his] goals and motives in
being a baseball player." According to
the critical scheme forwarded by Ware
and Linkugel, Sutton's primary strategy
was differentiation, for he provided a
new perspective by which the audience
could view the matter.5' Dorsett said
that his behavior was accidental, that the
episode "wasn't an intentional thing,"
but "was just something that happened."
In that Dorsett denied intent, his statement incorporated the strategy of
denial.^" Pete Rose's insistence that the
Cineinnati Reds organization alone was
responsible for his leaving the team was
also a plea that his conduct was involuntary, but his claim that he deserved what
other clubs were willing to offer him
because of his skill, his "sweat and [his]
dedication"""' was a justificationa redefinition of his action as "right" rather
than "wrong." Like Sutton, Rose offered
his audience a new perspective. On the
other hand, Garry Templeton's principal strategy was a subtle form of denial.
Templeton did not deny that his
outburst was intentional, but he implied
that his remarks had no truth value. He
suggested that he should be excused for
what he said because "the media"
provoked his anger. Media representaS'Ware and Linkugel, p. 278. For a distinction
among apologists' pleas that their behaviors were falsely
reported, unintentional, involuntary, intentional but
excusable, or justified see Noreen Wales Kruse, "Tbe
Eide of Apologetic Discourse: An Aristotelian Rhetorical-Poetic Analysis," Diss. Univ. of Iowa, 1979, pp.
34_35,49-59.
Ware and Linkugel, pp. 275-76.
""Pete Rose," 60 Minutes.

AUGUST 1981

tives "continued to question [him] on


[his contract]," even though he had
"stated many times" that his "irritation"
with the Cardinals "was not over [his]
salary." Calvin Griffith both denied
intent and differentiated. Griffith "honestly did not intend to hurt anyone." The
reporters had quoted him out of context,
and this "so distorted [his| meaning that
the [news] stories in no way reflect the
sense of the thoughts [he] was eonveying." In that a principal objective of the
team sport apologist is the repair of a
damaged public image, the strategies the
individual employs are the same ones
used by all apologists.
Invariably, sport personalities bolster
by aligning themselves with the sports
they represent and by asserting that
their attitudes toward the game are positive. We can assume that the audiences
to whom sport figures' apologiae are
directed view the game favorably and
hold positive attitudes toward the game.
If this were not the case, audienee
members would not be fans and bolstering would be unnecessary. Thus, Sutton
remarked that "being a baseball player"
was "the consistency of [his] life." He
also expressed his wish to "do [his] part
to have a team on whieh we can all work
together with the same motives and . . .
add something positive to each other's
lives." Dorsett acknowledged that he
"wanted to play football again." He
demonstrated that he had the proper
attitude by refusing to hold grudges and
by attending a team meeting, behaviors
that would be unnatural for one who did
not take the game seriously. Pete Rose
claimed that he put baseball above his
personal problems and that he took so
much batting practice his hands bled.""^
Templeton attested not only that he was
"anxious and ready to get back to playing baseball to the best of [his] ability,"
'^Linderman, pp. 191, 194.

281

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

but that he would "always play baseball


with 100% [sic] effort." Griffith asserted
that his "whole life has been baseball."
He also demonstrated that he had
displayed the eorreet attitude for almost
half a eentury: "During my 46 working
years in the game, I don't think I have
ever consciously done one thing to hurt
the game or its players, or to reflect
adversely upon either."
Sport figures' attempts to identify
themselves direetly with particular attitudes about the game are integral parts
of their discourses. By bolstering, they
try to prove to the fans that they are not
spoil-sports, that they uphold the game's
significance, and that they deserve to
continue as members of the sport
community.""^
In addition, sport figures are likely to
say, "I'm sorry," and express regret for
their eonduct. These apologists verbalize
their remorse so frequently that this can
be identified as a convention of the
discourse. Sutton remarked, "I humbly
and sineerely apologize to anyone who
has been embarrassed by this whole incident." Dorsett stated, "I'm sorry that it
happened to myself [c]," and Templeton said, "I regret the statements I made
yesterday." Griffith not only indicated
his wish "to apologize to anyone whom I
have offended," but promised he would
"speak personally" to Rod Carew and
write "personal letters of apology to each
of our players, to the Stadium Commission, and to our local chapter of the
NAACP." He added, "I apologize to
our fans and promise them that these
distorted statements do not truly represent my feelings or the policies of the
Minnesota Twins." Undoubtedly, Griffith extended this section of his statement because his remarks had offended
so many different groups.
The expression of sorrow is also a
" S e e Huizinga, p. t l .

KRUSE

significant element in the remarks of


those recanting heresy and in verbal aets
of eontrition, in the public statements
and the prayers of those who admit that
they have strayed from the path to spiritual salvation.^* Those apologists who
express their remorse are also taeitly
acknowledging a temporary loss of faith.
Regret functions rhetorically as evidence
that one has taken the first step in mending one's ways and, thus, serves as
temporary proof that one is worthy of
being reunited with the eommunity one
has offended. Sport figures who indicate
they are sorry for their behavior combine
a feature of the recantation with strategies characteristic of the apologia.
Conventionally, the apologetic statements of sport personalities tend to be
brief and general. These apologists
rarely elaborate upon the circumstances
in which they were involved. Sutton
claimed he did not remember "singling
out one member of [Garvey's] family,"
and surmised that the incident was
meant to function as a message from
God, but he said nothing about the
reason for his initial indiscretion or who
might have initiated the altercation.
Apparently, though, Sutton was not
employing the strategy of transcendence,
for he did not attempt to provide the
audience with a more abstract view of
his character. Rather than "move the
audience away from the particulars of
the charges at hand," he simply did not
develop complete answers to those
ch arges.""^
This lack of development can also be
seen in the apologetic responses offered
by Dorsett, Templeton, and Griffith.
Dorsett was especially vague. He eharacterized the situation in which he was
^See, for example, Thomas Cramner's recantation in
The Works oj Thomas Cramner, ed. G. E. Diffield,
introd. J. I. Packer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1965), pp. 332-40.
"Ware and Linkugel, p. 280.

282
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH

involved as "just something that happened." He did not identify the circumstances that led to his need for a character defense; in his televised statement, he
did not mention oversleeping or his failure to telephone Landry.
Templeton, too, failed to elaborate.
He asserted that his remarks during the
radio interview had been made "in the
heat of anger." He also suggested that
his anger had been provoked by newspersons who asked about his contract.
However, he did not explain, as he
might have, why he became angry about
questions relating to his contract when
the interviewer had made a statement
about Templeton's unwillingness to play
in St. Louis. He did not indicate why he
thought the media continued to press
him about his contract when he had
revealed that his contract was not a
problem. He might have justified his
anger by including specific examples of
the "many times" he attempted to clarify
the matter for reporters.
Griffith's explanations for his conduct
were equally underdeveloped. Although
he claimed that he had been drinking
and was trying to be funny, he also
accused reporters of quoting him out of
context. He might have provided the
complete context in which he had made
his statements, but he did not. He indicated that some of his colleagues had
suggested he bring legal action, but he
did not name these people. Like the
others, he asserted more than he argued.
The lack of development one sees in
sport personalities' apologiae seems to be
due to two factors.'"' First, by the time
^Some sport figures do offer complex, detailed eharacter defenses. For example, on August 12, 1978, Jack
Tatum, then of the Oakland Raiders, tackled Darryl
Stingley during an exhibition game. Stingley was left
paralyzed from the waist down. Tatutn wrote a book in
which he explained what happened to Stingley,
defended his aggressive playing style, and presented

AUGUST 1981

the apologetic statements reach the


public, the fans are fairly well acquainted with the situational elements
that provoked the discourse. Because
fans are concerned primarily with team
stability and winning, an apologist's
specific development of "what took
place" and "why it happened" is less
important than assurances that "everything is now in order." Furthermore,
sport figures defend their characters
only when it is obvious to everyone that
their actions are wrong. Those who
explain their circumstances in detail or
who extend their arguments risk implicating themselves further.
Second, and perhaps more important,
many of those who have violated the
sport world's ethical norms can demonstrate good character to the fans with
concrete actions. Fans can recognize
whether or not an individual is a cooperative team member who has a proper
attitude toward the game. Thus, the
extensive development of scenarios and
arguments may be unnecessary for many
team sport apologists. As Dennis Cutter
of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sports
Department remarked after the Templeton incident: "The season has started
and words are now immaterial. Fans are
fair and they will judge him [Templeton] by what he does on the playing
field."
himself as a gentle person. Pete Rose justified his move
to Philadelphia in extensive broadcast interviews on
Donahue and 60 Minutes and in Penthouse magazine.
In Rose's case, the charges of disloyalty leveled against
him were contingent upon the belief that because he was
greedy, he had sold himself to the highest bidder.
Consequently, in defending his character, Rose found it
necessary to reveal the details of more lucrative ofTers
made by clubs other than the Phillies and to disclose the
factors that influenced his decision to sign with Philadelphia. See Jack Tatum, with Bill Kusher, They Call
Me Assassin (New York: Everest House, 1979). See
also Linderman, pp. 188, 190.
^'Personal letter received from Dennis Cutter, St.
Louis Post-Dispatch Sports Department, 13 Apr. 1979.

QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF SPEECH


CONCLUSION

The world of team sport is a social


construct, and sport exists for the fans as
a kind of secular religion. Fans identify
with particular teams, place themselves
under the destinies of those teams, and
designate team members their surrogates. In this context, sporting contests
are mythoreligious rites.
Because winning is vitally important,
the concept of outscoring opponents
controls all of the sport world's ethical
precepts. Any conduct that might
contribute to a team's loss violates those
precepts and renders the agent vulnerable to criticism or rejection. Those who
place their own interests above team
welfare, those who demonstrate anything less than absolute devotion to the
team or the game, and those who do not
play to the best of their abilities all
violate team sport's rules of conduct.
Any transgression of this type poses a
symbolic threat to the fans' quest for
victory. Sport figures who violate these
ethical norms will offer apologetic statements. Only by demonstrating their
moral value can sport personalities
convince the fans that they are surrogates worthy of participation in the rite
of the game.
In defending their characters, sport
figures use the same strategies other
apologists employ. However, it is incumbent upon those who have violated the
sport ethic to assure the fans that equilibrium has been restored, and a stable
relationship exists between the team and
the fates. Consequently, sport apologists
assert their positive attitudes toward the

283
KRUSE

game. For this reason, too, they express


sorrow for their behaviors in the manner
of those who recant heresies or who
make verbal acts of contrition. Sport
apologists' statements are oftentimes
brief. They do not include many of the
details of the situations in which they
were involved. Assuring the fans that
they have not upset the mythoreligious
order is a more salient task than providing lengthy explanations of their
actions.
Rhetorical critics can profit from the
recognition that sport constitutes a
significant area of study. Just as there is
a sociology of sport, which various scholars have only recently established as a
legitimate field of investigation, so is
there of rhetoric of sport that should be
explored.'* An institution that has such
a pervasive effect upon the lives of so
many should not be ignored, especially
when that effect is produced, in part, by
rhetorical means.
." the many areas scholars might investigate
in the future are: the media's role in constructing the
images of teams and individual athletes; bias in sport
broadcasting; the similarities in or differences between
player contract negotiations and union-labor contract
negotiations; the rules governing the ritualized arguments of coaches/managers with referees/umpires and
the manner in which these might relate to the rules
governing other types of argumentation; the ways in
which team representatives must talk about both their
own and opposing teams before and after games; the
legitimate excuses that can be offered for losing contests;
strategies of persuasion employed by team representatives in recruiting college athletes; the ways in which
rhetoric might legitimize women's professional team
sport organizations like the WBA; the ritual sacrifices
of coaches and managers when teams have poor seasons;
and the manners in which signs and signals, which are
used both to obscure and clarify meaning during games,
could modify or alter current communication models.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi